Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time For Service Pursuant To F.R.Civ.P.4(m)

This case alleges targeting of the leaders of an Islamic charity and their lawyers by the admitted, targeted warrantless wiretapping by the NSA. It is based on a document that was accidentally disclosed to the plaintiffs by the government that the plaintiffs allege demonstrates that they were subjected to warrantless wiretapping (the exact facts are held under tight seal).

This is Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Time For Service Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.4(m).

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jon B. Eisenberg, California Bar No. 88278 (jon@eandhlaw.com) William N. Hancock, California Bar No. 104501 (bill@eandhlaw.com) Eisenberg & Hancock LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1200 • Oakland, CA 94612 510.452.258l – Fax 510.452.3277 Steven Goldberg, Oregon Bar No. 75134 (steven@stevengoldberglaw.com) River Park Center, Suite 300 • 205 SE Spokane St.• Portland, OR 97202 503.445.4622 – Fax 503.238.7501 Thomas H. Nelson, Oregon Bar No. 78315 (nelson@thnelson.com) P.O. Box 1211, 24525 E. Welches Road • Welches, OR 97067 503.622.3123 -Fax: 503.622.1438 Zaha S. Hassan, California Bar No. 184696 (zahahassan@comcast.net) 8101 N.E. Parkway Drive, Suite F-2 • Vancouver, WA 98662 360.213.9737 -Fax 866.399.5575 J. Ashlee Albies, Oregon Bar No. 05184 (ashlee@sstcr.com) Steenson, Schumann, Tewksbury, Creighton and Rose, PC 815 S.W. Second Ave., Suite 500 • Portland, OR 97204 503.221.1792 – Fax 503.223.1516 Lisa R. Jaskol, California Bar No. 138769 (ljaskol@earthlink.net) 610 S. Ardmore Ave.• Los Angeles, CA 90005 213.385.2977 – Fax 213.385.9089 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc., Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS LITIGATION This Document Relates Solely To: Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Bush, et al. (C07-CV-0109-VRW) _____________________________________ )))))))))) MDL Docket No. 06-1791 VRW PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE PURSUANT TO F. R. CIV. P. 4(m) Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc., et al., v. Bush, et al. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE MDL DOCKET NO. 06-1791 VRW Caassee M::0066--ccvv--0011779911--VRW D o Dcoucmuemnet n4t4 4747 FFiilleedd 0044//1177//22000088 PPaaggee 11 ooff 55 1 Bar No. 88278 (jon@eandhlaw.William N. Hancock, California Bar No. 104501 (bill@eandhlaw.& LLP Suite 1200 • Oakland, CA 510.452.2581 -Bar No. 75134 (steven@stevengoldberglaw.205 SE -Thomas H. Nelson, Oregon Bar No. 78315 (nelson@thnelson.Bar No. 184696 (zahahassan@comcast.Bar No. 05184 (ashlee@Schumann, Tewksbury, and Rose, -Bar No. 138769 (ljaskol@earthlink.-for Plaintiffs Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc., Wendell Belew and Asim STATES DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY ) Docket RECORDS ) ) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXTEND FOR SERVICE PURSUANT ) Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc., et al. v. ) at. (C07-CV-) PLAINTIFFS' TO TIME FOR NO. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=99070eef-6c71-44c9-8fa0-bddbea00529d2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE MDL DOCKET NO. 06-1791 VRW 1 INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs hereby move this Court under F. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for an Order extending the time for service of the Complaint and Summons on Defendants George W. Bush, Keith B. Alexander, Robert W. Werner, and Robert S. Mueller III, individually. This Motion is based upon F. R. Civ. P. 4(m), N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 6-3, and the Declaration of Steven Goldberg attached hereto. Rule 4(m) requires a two-step analysis in deciding whether to extend the time for serving a Complaint. First, upon a showing of good cause, the Court must extend the time period. Second, even absent good cause, the Court still has discretion to extend the time period. In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs request an extension on both grounds. I. GOOD CAUSE To put the issue in context here: Plaintiffs properly served the U.S. government through the U. S. Attorney General. Within weeks, however, this case became focused on the classified document that Plaintiffs filed under seal with the Complaint. (Docket Nos. 6, 9). There were numerous telephone conferences with Judge Garr King, to whom the case was initially assigned, regarding the nature of the document, where the document should be kept, and whether Plaintiffs should have access to the document or be able to rely on it in this litigation. (Declaration of Steven Goldberg, p. 1). These issues, along with Defendants’ assertion of the state secrets privilege, have driven this litigation to date in the trial and appellate courts and have overshadowed all other aspects of this case. We believe this context explains plaintiffs’ oversight in omitting to serve Defendants individually and demonstrates good cause for the requested extension. If, however, this Court concludes otherwise, we respectfully ask the Court to exercise its discretion to extend the time period for serving the named Defendants individually. II. EXERCISE OF DISCRETION District courts have broad discretion to extend the time for service under Rule 4(m). In actions that arise under federal law and have been commenced in compliance with the governing statute of limitations, “the manner and timing of serving process are generally nonjurisdictional matters of ‘procedure’ controlled by the Federal Rules.” Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 656 (1966). In particular, 1993 amendments to Rule 4(m) gave courts greater leeway to preserve meritorious Caassee M::0066--ccvv--0011779911--VRW D o Dcoucmuemnet n4t4 4747 FFiilleedd 0044//1177//22000088 PPaaggee 22 ooff 55 1 hereby time George W. Bush, Keith S. Mueller II, This Motion is based upon L.R. 6-3, and the Declaration of Steven Goldberg attached hereto. First, upon a showing of good cause, good cause, the Court still has discretion to extend the time period. re Sheehan, Plaintiffs request an extension on both grounds. 1. in properly served S. Attorney weeks, however, this case on the classifed fled under seal with the Complaint. There were numerous with Garr assigned, should have access or be able to rely on it Steven along with Defendants' state secrets privilege, have driven this litigation and appellate courts and have other aspects this case. context plaintiffs' oversight in omitting to serve Defendants and demonstrates for extension. If, individually. courts time Rule 4(m). commenced in compliance with of "the manner of serving process `procedure' by Rules." Henderson v. United States, to PLAINTIFFS' TO TIME FOR NO. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=99070eef-6c71-44c9-8fa0-bddbea00529d2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE MDL DOCKET NO. 06-1791 VRW 2 lawsuits despite untimely service of process. Thus, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that district courts have broad discretion under Rule 4(m) to extend the time for service even without a showing of good cause. Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2006). Further, a district court may extend the time for service retroactively after the 120-day service period has expired. Mann v. American Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. 2164 Watches, 366 F.3d 767, 772 (9th Cir. 2004). In making extension decisions under Rule 4(m), the district court may consider such factors as “a statute of limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant, actual notice of a lawsuit, and eventual service.” Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d at 1041. Here, these factors favor extending the time for service against the individual Defendants: A. Actual Notice to Defendants This lawsuit has engendered much publicity since its initial filing – in Oregon, San Francisco and nationally. Throughout this case, Defendants have been represented by the Department of Justice, which filed its appearance “on behalf of all defendants.” (Docket Nos. 13-15). At least one individual Defendant, Keith Alexander, has filed declarations in his capacity as Director of the National Security Agency. [Dockets Nos. 55, 59]. Plaintiffs do not know whether the declarations of other individual Defendants are among the many ex parte, in camera filings in this case to which Plaintiffs and their counsel have been denied access. In any event, there can be no doubt that the individual Defendants have known of this lawsuit. And it is well settled – and surely known by the Department of Justice – that a nonspecific complaint may be characterized as alleging both official and personal capacity liability. See Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 469 (1985); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166-67 (1985). The individual Defendants surely have had actual notice of this lawsuit, and their counsel certainly must have known the applicable law under which the Complaint may be characterized as naming the Defendants individually. B. Absence of Prejudice to Defendants Defendants cannot have suffered any conceivable prejudice because of Plaintiffs’ omission to serve them individually. Defendants might have obtained independent counsel, but certainly they Caassee M::0066--ccvv--0011779911--VRW D o Dcoucmuemnet n4t4 4747 FFiilleedd 0044//1177//22000088 PPaaggee 33 ooff 55 1 ofprocess. Thus, Circuit has without Efw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, Further, a court may expired. 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. 2164 court may consider "of bar, the defendant, and service." Efaw v. Wlliams, 473 F.3d at 1041. Here, these much publicity since its initial -in Oregon, San Throughout this case, Defendants have been "behalf of all defendants." (13-15). individual Director National do not know whether individual among the many ex parte, in camera filings in this case to which Plaintiffs access. can be no doubt that the individual have known settled -and -characterized as alleging both offcial capacity liability. See U.159, 166-67 (1985). notice of counsel the Complaint may be characterized as naming the Defendants suffered any conceivable prejudice because of Plaintiffs' individually. Defendants might have obtained independent PLAINTIFFS' TO TIME FOR NO. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=99070eef-6c71-44c9-8fa0-bddbea00529d2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE MDL DOCKET NO. 06-1791 VRW 3 would not have pursued a different trial strategy. To date, there has been no discovery in this case. No documents have been exchanged; no depositions have been taken. The entirety of this litigation has been halted in its tracks while the courts have focused on the classified document, the state secrets privilege, and FISA preemption. Defendants have been ably represented by the Department of Justice, and that representation would have been no different had they been served individually. C. Statute of Limitations Bar If, as seems likely, the applicable limitations period in this case is two years, the statute of limitations may bar the filing of an Amended Complaint for service on Defendants individually, since Plaintiffs first realized in December 2005 that they were unlawfully surveilled. The Ninth Circuit has made clear that a statute of limitations bar is a factor supporting the exercise of discretion to extend the time for service. United States v. 2164 Watches, 366 F.3d at 773; Mann v. American Airlines, 324 F.3d at 1090-1091 (“The district court’s discretion is not diminished when the statute of limitations would bar re-filing of the suit if the district court decided to dismiss the case instead of grant an extension. To the contrary, the advisory committee notes explicitly contemplate that a district court might use its discretion to grant an extension in that very situation: ‘Relief may be justified, for example, if the applicable statute of limitations would bar the re-filed action.’ Fed R CivP 4, Advisory Committee Note to 1993 Amendments, Subdivision (m).”). D. The Importance of This Case Finally, if this lawsuit dies because of the omission to serve Defendants individually, there might never be any resolution of the critical issues the action raises – whether FISA preempts the state secrets privilege and whether the President may disregard an act of Congress in the name of national security. Similar litigation elsewhere has failed for lack of standing, and the actions against the telecommunications carriers are under threat of retroactive immunity. The present case might well be the only hope for a judicial determination of these critical issues. Public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits rather than dismissal on procedural grounds. “This policy favoring resolution on the merits ‘is particularly important in civil rights cases.’” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). //Caassee M::0066--ccvv--0011779911--VRW D o Dcoucmuemnet n4t4 4747 FFiilleedd 0044//1177//22000088 PPaaggee 44 ooff 55 1 strategy. To date, there has in this case. exchanged; no depositions have been taken. The entirety of this litigation halted in the state and preemption. Defendants have been ably represented would no different served individually. C. Statute of Limitations Bar as likely, this case may individually, frst realized in December were unlawfully has statute of limitations States 366 F.3d at 773; ("court's discretion not diminished bar fling of the suit if the district court decided to dismiss the case extension. contrary, advisory committee notes explicitly district an extension in that very situation: `Relief may be justifed, applicable statute of limitations would bar the re-fled action.' R CivP Advisory Subdivision m)."). Case if this lawsuit dies because the individually, issues -preempts privilege in of Similar litigation elsewhere has failed for lack of standing, and the actions against threat of retroactive immunity. The present might for judicial critical issues. Public policy disposition of on their merits rather than dismissal on procedural grounds. "This policy favoring `rights cases. "' Hernandez PLAINTIFFS' TO TIME FOR NO. 3 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=99070eef-6c71-44c9-8fa0-bddbea00529d2 3 4 5 6789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE MDL DOCKET NO. 06-1791 VRW 4 CONCLUSION In light of these various factors, we respectfully ask this Court to grant a 30-day extension of the time period for serving the Defendants individually. DATED this 17th day of April, 2008. /s/Steven Goldberg STEVEN GOLDBERG, Ore. Bar No. 75134 Caassee M::0066--ccvv--0011779911--VRW D o Dcoucmuemnet n4t4 4747 FFiilleedd 0044//1177//22000088 PPaaggee 55 ooff 55 1 of these of individually. 17" PLAINTIFFS' NO. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=99070eef-6c71-44c9-8fa0-bddbea00529d

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.